The script syntax is used to change the browsing the character level size, if your browser does not support and will not affect the page reading
  •  :::
    * *

    Bulletin Board

  • 
    Tools
    Text Size: S M L
    Forward  Forward Quote  Quote Print  Print
    Previous Previous
  • 
    Anti-Money Laundering
  • Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT)

     

    1.Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Forty Recommendations, Methodology and Guidance

    2. AML/CFT Regulatory Regime of Taiwan?

     


    3. Mutual Evaluation by the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering(APG)

    Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) Mutual Evaluation
    The Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) was officially established in February 1997 at the Fourth Asia/Pacific Money Laundering Symposium in Bangkok. Joining the APG in the name of Chinese Taipei, Taiwan is one of the thirteen founding members of the organization. Headquartered in Australia, the APG now has thirty-six members. Because APG is an associate member of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), Taiwan participates in FATF activities as an APG member.

    The APG mutual evaluation adopts the standards set forth in the FATF Forty Recommendations and Nine Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing. In the evaluation process, the jurisdiction being evaluated first completes a written questionnaire and provides the questionnaire along with related regulations and information to the evaluation team. The evaluation team will then make an on-site visit of the jurisdiction that lasts from two weeks to one month, and produce a draft evaluation report in two months after the on-site visit. The draft report rates the assessed items by four level of compliance, namely Compliance (C), Largely Compliant (LC), Partially Compliant (PC) and Non-compliant (NC), and is sent to the jurisdiction being evaluated for response. After relevant comments on the draft report are considered, a revised report is presented to the APG Plenary during the APG annual meeting for discussion, response and adoption. If a mutual evaluation report is not adopted by the APG Plenary , the APG will relate serious concern to the jurisdiction concerned or require the jurisdiction to propose progress report according to the resolutions made by the APG Plenary until remedial actions have been taken. Given the myriad of issues to be evaluated, it takes one year on average to complete the mutual evaluation. Taiwan began preparing for the mutual evaluation in October 2005 by virtue of meetings on a regular basis which were called by the Ministry of Justice and attended by the FSC and other government agencies, and the whole process lasted nearly two years when our mutual evaluation report was adopted by the APG Plenary in July 2007. The APG mutual evaluation process is highly transparent and the evaluation results are internationally recognized. The evaluation reports are distributed to APG members, IMF, World Bank, among other important international organizations. As such, APG members attach considerable importance to the APG mutual evaluations.

    The APG evaluation team visited Taiwan twice in March 2001 and January 2007 respectively to evaluate our anti-money laundering work from the perspectives of regulations, law enforcement and financially systems, and gave us positive assessment both times.

     

    • APG Mutual Evaluation Report on Chinese Taipei adopted by the APG Plenary on 24 July 2007(PDF FILE) *
    • APG 2nd Round Mutual Evaluation of Taiwan
      • Summary of the ME Process and Results 
        • Evaluation process and summary of evaluation results
          In the 10th APG Annual Meeting held on July 23 ~ 27, 2007 in Perth, Australia, APG members considered and adopted mutual evaluation reports on anti-money laundering and the combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) for Macao ( China), Mongolia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Chinese Taipei, and Thailand. The FSC together with the representatives of Ministry of Justice, Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Money Laundering Prevention Center of Investigation Bureau, and National Police Administration attended the annual meeting. The APG adopted the mutual evaluation report on Taiwan on July 24, 2007 and published the mutual evaluation reports for six members on October 10, 2007.
          APG sent an evaluation team to Taiwan to conduct a two-week long Round 2 mutual evaluation from January 28 to February 11, 2007. The evaluation team consisted of five legal and financial experts from Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Cook Islands, and Fiji. During their on-site visit, they conducted large-scale evaluation of four bureaus under the FSC, four trade associations, and ninefinancial institutions. This was the first time for our financial sector to receive such a full-scale evaluation from an international organization that covered the banking, securities and insurance industries. In addition to an assessment of the AML/CFT mechanism of our financial sector, the evaluation touched upon the analysis of our financial supervisory policies and measures.
          The mutual evaluation report on Taiwan adopted by the APG Plenary gave rather positive comments and ratings of the AML/CFT measures and supervisory systems of our financial sector. Out of the 24 Recommendations on “preventive measures- financial institutions”, nearly more than one third of the report, we received Compliant (C), Largely Compliant (LC), or Partially Compliant (PC) for 21 items. As to the core Recommendations for the prevention of money laundering in the financial sector, such as “customer due diligence”, “internal control, compliance and audit”, “regulation, supervision and monitoring”, “AML requirements for money/value transfer services”, and “wire transfer rules”, we received the same or even higher ratings than the US, Australia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland in, indicating that the AML/CFT actions of our financial sector are on par with the international standards. The APG evaluation team indicated in the APG annual meeting that they were impressed with Taiwan’s sufficient supervisory regime and good implementation of and internal control and auditing systems of financial institutions. Moreover, their evaluation report points out that the FSC appears to carry out its policy making and enforcement work in a professional, fair and independent manner, and that the FSC has been more proactively involved in the issuance of guidance the banking, securities and insurance sector. The publication of the mutual evaluation report on Taiwan is expected to promote the international reputation for our financial supervisory system and financial institutions.?
      • AML/CFT Mutual Evaluation/Detailed Assessment Questionnaire of Chinese Taipei(PDF FILE) *

     

    4. Resources & Links

     

     

    Visitor:2630  Update:2014-04-11

     
  • 
    Tools
    Forward  Forward Quote  Quote Print  Print
    Previous Previous